except for all the people that have their identities violated by that interpretation. — Wolfy48
there is no use arguing over whose opinion is scientifically correc — Wolfy48
Giveth and taken away, see above. Hmm. Unless "female" and "male" do not correspond to sex. — tim wood
Look, I know this is coming from a good place but that is the same excuse that people used to justify racial segregation in the States — Wolfy48
. . . and? Are we supposed to ignore the decrease in certain social roles with complete ambivalence?Politics didn't need to address this issue until the last five years or so. — AmadeusD
More so, if they are inherently unequal and distinct what exactly is meant to motivate us to have laws/policies/social policing that is intended to be neutral on those aspects?Why might this matter? Sports, healthcare, legal protections incl. relationship imbalance, workplace harrassment, privacy laws, certain crimes are sex-specific and much else besides. Much of society is informed, fundamentally, by the sex engaging in a given activity. This is basis for most political theorizing around resource, power and social justice. Males and females are different. How do we account for, and equivocate that? — AmadeusD
. . . and? Are we supposed to ignore the decrease in certain social roles with complete ambivalence? — substantivalism
if they are inherently unequal and distinct what exactly is meant to motivate us to have laws/policies/social policing that is intended to be neutral on those aspects? — substantivalism
Then call it social engineering or social outreach but its a discussion that is required to be had.I'm not entirely sure what the question is - what decrease are you talking about? In any case, 'roles' are not what policy aims to talk about. — AmadeusD
They do have consequences. What you choose to do and not to do.The 'roles' we play are identities and generally not subject to policy. — AmadeusD
Ergo, in cases of extreme enough inter-group conflict we can and have fully separated out groups. Segregation practices and closed borders. The question is one of how much percentage in inter-group conflict are you willing to stomach before you go in and manually separate them out.The harms that might result tend to be. Which doesn't butter much bread for you, I can see, but it at least separates the two questions about "what's happening with identity and gender roles" and then what's going on with sex, and how this does not change. — AmadeusD
Have you seen the inequality in these statistics? On the Crime Data Explorer over the past five years we've had around apparently 85.77% of rapes committed by males alone. Those are merely the ones nationally reported........please, PLEASE do not be this obtuse. The harm. The fucking HARM from the inequity. — AmadeusD
They do have consequences. What you choose to do and not to do. — substantivalism
The question is one of how much percentage in inter-group conflict are you willing to stomach before you go in and manually separate them out. — substantivalism
Whether we enforce it vocally and explicitly? — substantivalism
In fact, getting rid of them would seem more amenable besides just adding new exclusive woman's spaces. — substantivalism
Those are merely the ones nationally reported. — substantivalism
. . . or legal language. . . or person-person interactions. As I said at the top. People are rather quick to lay down the law of the land and policy as they suddenly turn extremely neutral on the issues for some reason. As if those previous class based reasons didn't still matter as to the judgement in enacting whatever we were going to do policy wise.Your thread/questions are about policy. — AmadeusD
Then sky is the limit then. We'd need to hit the ground running otherwise it will continue as it has been.Zero, if deaths or grievous harm are involved (or, more properly 1 - instance, per-cent, whatever you like. 1 is enough). — AmadeusD
Then we should be fine to state it loud and proud no skirting around it. Agreed.Plenty of groups do this. Can you clarify the question? — AmadeusD
Yes, except as those statistics noted that isn't the only place this conflict resides. . . it's literally in our homes and residences. Many of these offenders and victims seemed to know each other even. Friends, family members, acquittances, etc.Fwiw, my solution is "neutral" and "female". Sounds like it's not far off something you'd be ok with? — AmadeusD
Yes, partly, because I want out of people honesty as to what they are doing as well as further actions to be taken. Legality has been talked to death and nothing more can be added aside from adding life sentencing or flattening sentencing across the sex spectrum equally. Morality is a no go as you and me would both avoid any of these options if we could help it but like difficult decisions in a war context we cannot do so.This response makes my point with much more vigour than I put into it. Was that the intent? — AmadeusD
sigh*
Actually that was interesting to research.I will no longer state all individuals are either male or female. Some are mosaic 46,XX/46 XY
— Malcolm Parry
It certainly isn’t a spectrum like some claim.
— Malcolm Parry
Because there are only two sexes. Male and female
— Malcolm Parry
— tim wood
Emphasis added. — tim wood
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.